Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I kept Water and sewarage out of my Council task costs and compared directly.



I too am paying £834.66 for water and waste

indeed so, you have conclusively proved that England needs its money back from Scotland as the the CT is Lambeth is 2447 (after subsidy).

This clearly shows that the costs running In London are higher : England needs its money back from Scotland

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

indeed so, you have conclusively proved that England needs its money back from Scotland as the the CT is Lambeth is 2447 (after subsidy).

This clearly shows that the costs running In London are higher : England needs its money back from Scotland

You need to do more research Clapton.

There are many parts of England which are more subsidized than Scotland

What you want is a more centralised London approach rather than supporting the whole of the UK, including Yorkshire

Froggitt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That said, I heard on the radio that some Railway union was balloting for strike and it is a usual ploy to exert pressure on reaching a deal if they show a mandate for strike from it's representation.

I heard that as well. Its made my mind up, I'm driving.

Froggitt

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Oh come on Gen, she wanted to destroy the trade unions. Which she did admirably. Not least of all by ensuring they had as few members as possible.

She had a lot of help though. Couldn't have done it without all the assistance that Scargill and his chums gave.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You need to do more research Clapton.

There are many parts of England which are more subsidized than Scotland

What you want is a more centralised London approach rather than supporting the whole of the UK, including Yorkshire

The subsidies within each area of scotland are decided by the scottish government and not by westminster.

in the same way the various council areas in England have their block grant decided out of the 'English pot'.

Why is that a problem for you?

Although I can't see any relevance, if you have any interesting figures about the way that either scotland or england distribute their share of the money please do share them.

The issue about the unfair Barnett formula is the Scotland get per head about 1,500 more than england.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

The issue about the unfair Barnett formula is the Scotland

Write to your MP then.

Froggitt

CLAPTON wrote: »

The issue about the unfair Barnett formula is the Scotland get per head about 1,500 more than england.

.........which means that, on top of all the slosh for large land masses, there's enough left over for free university/prescriptions etc. Take away all that extra stuff, and I believe we're approaching a fair "new Barnett" formula.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

in the same way the various council areas in England have their block grant decided out of the 'English pot'.

I can see that

London gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure per resident than north-east England

London is different: the government will spend money there

CLAPTON wrote: »

is that a problem for you?

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I can see that

London gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure per resident than north-east England

London is different: the government will spend money there

I'm not sure the point that's being made here. Is it basically an anti English rant or a serious point of interest?

One would expect to spend infrastructure money where it is most needed and where the return on the investment is greatest.

The growth in population in the NE over the last 15 years was about 0.1 million but London has grown by 2-3 million. That's about half the population of Scotland.

Obviously the costs of building new infrastructure are very high in built up areas compared to open countryside.

I would expect all government to be mindful of where the need is and best return for money.

I would be surprised if the Scottish government spent as much in Durness as it does in the central belt.

Maybe you could give the breakdown for the various parts of Scotland?

However there is a general point that it would be better if more industry and business chose to move away from London. However that would be a matter for them and not for the government.

I think a great opportunity was missed since 2008: there should have been far more cuts in the benefits bill and far more spending on infrastructure by both the Labour party and the Coalition.
We would now have the benefit of the spending and have the opportunity for sustainable growth.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

However there is a general point that it would be better if more industry and business chose to move away from London. However that would be a matter for them and not for the government.

I think a great opportunity was missed since 2008: there should have been far more cuts in the benefits bill and far more spending on infrastructure by both the Labour party and the Coalition.
We would now have the benefit of the spending and have the opportunity for sustainable growth.

This has to happen. Exactly which government is capable of doing so is open to debate.